From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. McDonald

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 7, 2010
No. CIV-S-10-1314 FCD KJM P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV-S-10-1314 FCD KJM P.

December 7, 2010


ORDER


Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file a traverse. Good cause appearing, this request will be granted.

In addition, petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Fed.R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's November 19, 2010 request for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 19) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings;

2. Petitioner's November 19, 2010 request for an extension of time (Docket No. 18) is granted; and

3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and serve a traverse.

DATED: December 7, 2010.


Summaries of

Moore v. McDonald

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 7, 2010
No. CIV-S-10-1314 FCD KJM P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2010)
Case details for

Moore v. McDonald

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN ARNOLD MOORE, Petitioner, v. M. McDONALD, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Dec 7, 2010

Citations

No. CIV-S-10-1314 FCD KJM P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2010)